STATE OF GUJARAT vs BHAGWATIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
Reserved On : -17/10/2026
Pronounced On : 30/10/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 684 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHAGWATIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KB ANANDJIWALA(134) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER)
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.01.2004, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,
Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.4 of 2001, for the offences under
Sections 302, 306, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the
appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
“the Code”).
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the
trial Court is that the complainant, the deceased, Shailaben, was
married to Accused No. 1, while Accused No. 2 was the elder
brother of accused No.1 and the husband of Accused No.3 and due
to an alleged illicit relationship between Accused No. 1 and
Accused No. 3, the deceased was perceived as an obstacle, leading
all three accused to subject her to continuous physical and mental
harassment and on the night between 08.10.1999, and 09.10.1999,
all three accused forcibly administered pesticide medicine to her,
committed murder, and subsequently poured kerosene over her
body and set it on fire.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was
found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was
filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged
against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case
No.4 of 2001. The charge was framed against the accused person/s.
The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has
examined 17 witnesses and also produced 11 documentary evidence
before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned
judgment.
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge
acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was
framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed
out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through
both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned
trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed
to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that
the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It
is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given
much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in
the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that
connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted
that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is
also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the
evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed
an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court
may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the
learned trial Court.
7. Heard learned advocate APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr.Vishal Anandjiwala from the side of
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
learned advocate Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala for the respondent and
perused the document on record.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties
and having carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence
on record, this Court is required to consider whether the learned
trial Judge committed any error in acquitting the respondents
accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 306, 120B
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
8.1. The prosecution case is that the deceased Shailaben was
married to accused No. 1, while accused No. 2 was the elder
brother of accused No. 1 and the husband of accused No. 3. It
was alleged that accused No. 1 was having an illicit relationship
with accused No. 3, due to which the deceased was subjected to
physical and mental harassment by all the accused. According to
the prosecution, during the night between 08.10.1999 and
09.10.1999, the accused forcibly administered pesticide to the
deceased, caused her death and thereafter poured kerosene on her
body and set her on fire to destroy the evidence of the offence.
8.2. Sanjaybhai Patel, the brother of the deceased and the
complainant, was examined at Exh. 14. On considering his
complaint and deposition, it appears that the principal allegation
made by him was regarding the alleged illicit relationship between
accused No. 1 and accused No. 3. However, the complaint does not
contain any specific allegation of physical violence against the
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
deceased or a demand for dowry. His evidence, therefore, does not
establish that the deceased was subjected to physical harassment
or that the accused had committed any specific act which resulted
in her death. The allegation regarding the illicit relationship also
required support from other reliable evidence, but the material on
record does not establish it.
8.3. Dineshbhai Shah, a resident of bungalow No. 65, was
examined at Exh. 17. He stated that at about 5:45 a.m., while he
was on the terrace of his premises, he saw accused No. 1 and his
children knocking on the main door of the first floor portion where
the deceased was residing. As the door was not opened, accused
No. 2 and the neighbours were called. His evidence further shows
that the window grill was opened with the help of a screwdriver,
after which accused No. 2 entered the premises and opened the
main door from inside. The dead body of the deceased was
thereafter found near the bathroom. This witness has not stated
that he saw any of the accused administering poison to the
deceased or setting her on fire. His testimony is relevant to
understand the condition of the premises when the incident came
to light, particularly the fact that accused No. 1 was knocking on
the door along with his children.
8.4. Vrajeshbhai Shah, who was residing in bungalow No. 66, was
examined at Exh. 19. He stated that the deceased was residing on
the first floor and that the main door was closed from inside. As
the door could not be opened, accused No. 2 opened the window
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
grill with the help of a screwdriver, entered the premises and
thereafter opened the door. He further stated that the deceased
was found dead due to burn injuries. His evidence supports the
testimony of Dineshbhai Shah regarding the condition of the
premises and the manner in which entry was obtained. However,
he has not stated that he saw the accused committing any act
which caused the death of the deceased. His testimony, therefore,
establishes the circumstances in which the body was discovered,
but does not directly connect the accused with the alleged murder.
8.5. Kamleshbhai Natubhai Panchal was examined at Exh. 22. He
also stated that accused No. 1 and his children were knocking on
the main door and that the door was closed from inside. According
to him, it was not possible to enter the first floor portion without
opening the window grill and the main door. His evidence is
consistent with the testimony of the other neighbours regarding
the condition of the premises. However, he has not stated that
any of the accused entered the premises before the incident or
participated in the commission of the alleged offence. His
deposition does not establish how the deceased sustained the fatal
injuries or who was responsible for causing them.
8.6. The son of the deceased and accused No. 1 was examined at
Exh. 32. He stated that he, his father and his younger brother
were residing on the second floor, whereas the deceased was
residing on the first floor. On the morning of the incident, he and
his father knocked on the main door of the portion occupied by
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
the deceased, but she did not open it. He thereafter called his
uncle, who came with the neighbours. The window grill was
opened with the help of a screwdriver and entry was obtained into
the premises. He further stated that the main door and the
kitchen door were closed from inside and that entry was not
possible without opening the grill and the door.
8.7. The evidence of this witness does not support the allegation
that accused No. 1 was present inside the portion occupied by the
deceased at the time of the alleged incident. It also supports the
testimony of the neighbours regarding the condition of the
premises. Though these circumstances do not, by themselves,
conclusively establish that the deceased committed suicide, they
were relevant while examining the prosecution allegation that the
accused forcibly administered poison to her and thereafter set her
on fire. The prosecution has not produced convincing evidence to
establish the alleged sequence of events.
8.8. Kantibhai Patel, the uncle of the deceased, was examined at
Exh. 27. He stated that accused No. 1 was allegedly having an
illicit relationship with accused No. 3 and was demanding dowry
from the deceased. He attributed the incident to these
circumstances and alleged that all the accused were involved in
her death. However, his allegations regarding the illicit
relationship and dowry demand are not supported by consistent
evidence from the other witnesses. The complaint lodged by the
brother of the deceased does not contain a specific allegation of
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
dowry demand, while Ashokbhai Patel and the neighbouring
witnesses have not supported the allegation of harassment. In
these circumstances, his testimony, without reliable corroboration,
is insufficient to establish the alleged motive or the involvement of
the accused in the offence.
8.9. Ashokbhai Patel was examined at Exh. 23. He stated that the
deceased was neither harassed for dowry nor ill treated by her in
laws. His evidence does not support the prosecution allegation that
the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment by the
accused. When this testimony is considered along with the
evidence of the neighbours and the contents of the complaint, the
allegation of physical and mental harassment becomes doubtful.
The trial Court was, therefore, justified in considering this
evidence while examining the alleged motive and the charge of
abetment of suicide.
8.10. Champaben, the mother of the deceased, was examined at
Exh. 29. She stated that the deceased did not want to take
divorce and that a meeting to discuss the question of divorce was
proposed shortly before the incident. Her evidence indicates that
matrimonial issues existed between the deceased and accused No.
1. However, the existence of matrimonial differences or a proposal
to discuss divorce does not, by itself, establish that the accused
committed murder or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In
the absence of reliable evidence connecting the conduct of the
accused with her death, her testimony does not establish the
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
8.11. The maternal uncle of the deceased was examined at Exh.
37. He stated that the family had decided to pursue divorce
between the deceased and accused No. 1 on account of the alleged
illicit relationship between accused No. 1 and accused No. 3. His
evidence relates to the matrimonial differences between the
deceased and accused No. 1. However, the alleged illicit
relationship has not been established by cogent evidence, nor has
this witness identified any specific act of instigation or intentional
aid by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. His
testimony, therefore, does not establish the charges under Sections
302 or 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
8.12. Dr. Haresh Kothari, who conducted the postmortem
examination, was examined at Exh. 40. He stated that the burn
injuries were sustained during the lifetime of the deceased. He
further stated that no marks were found on the body suggesting
that poison had been forcibly administered. His evidence does not
support the specific prosecution case that the deceased was first
forcibly administered pesticide and was thereafter burnt to destroy
the evidence of murder. The prosecution has not produced other
convincing evidence to establish that the accused administered
poison to the deceased.
8.13. The absence of external marks does not invariably rule out
the possibility of forcible administration of poison. However, in the
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
present case, the prosecution has not established the alleged
administration of poison through other reliable evidence. The
medical evidence, therefore, does not provide sufficient support to
the prosecution version regarding the manner in which the
incident occurred. The trial Court was justified in considering this
evidence along with the other circumstances while deciding
whether the charge of murder had been proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
8.14. Dr. Uday Purandre was examined at Exh. 50. He had
considered the inquest report, postmortem report and panchnama
before expressing his opinion. However, he had neither examined
the dead body nor visited the scene of offence. His opinion was
based on the documents and material supplied to him. His
evidence, therefore, does not amount to an independent
examination of the deceased and does not establish that the
accused committed murder or deliberately set the deceased on fire.
The trial Court was justified in considering the limited basis of
his opinion along with the evidence of the doctor who had actually
conducted the postmortem.
8.15. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and produced 11
documentary exhibits. However, the material available for
consideration does not set out the depositions of all the remaining
witnesses. Their evidence must be examined from the original
Record and Proceedings before any specific finding is recorded
regarding their testimony. No further factual conclusion can safely
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
be drawn in the absence of the relevant depositions.
8.16. The panchnama of the scene of offence at Exh. 18, read with
the testimony of the neighbours, supports the circumstance that
the main door of the first floor portion was closed from inside and
that entry was obtained after opening the window grill. The
condition of the premises and the position in which the deceased
was found are relevant circumstances, but they do not, by
themselves, conclusively establish whether the death was homicidal
or suicidal. The prosecution was required to connect these
circumstances with reliable evidence showing the involvement of
the accused. The evidence discussed above does not establish such
a connection beyond reasonable doubt.
8.17. On considering the oral and documentary evidence as a
whole, the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged manner
of death or the participation of the accused in causing the death
of the deceased. The evidence of the neighbours and the son of
the deceased raises doubt about the prosecution version concerning
the circumstances in which the incident occurred. The medical
evidence also does not establish the specific sequence alleged by
the prosecution. Further, the allegations regarding the illicit
relationship and matrimonial harassment have not been established
by cogent and consistent evidence.
8.18. The charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
requires separate consideration. Even if the existence of
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
matrimonial differences is taken into account, the prosecution must
establish that the accused abetted the commission of suicide within
the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Mere
allegations of harassment or strained relations between the
deceased and her husband are not sufficient unless the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the statutory requirements of
abetment.
8.19. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence of any
specific act of instigation or intentional aid by the accused which
led the deceased to commit suicide. The proposed meeting
regarding divorce and the allegations of an illicit relationship may
indicate matrimonial discord, but they do not, by themselves,
establish abetment. The prosecution has also failed to establish
any positive act by the accused, sufficiently connected with the
incident, which could reasonably be said to have instigated or
compelled the deceased to take such a step.
8.20. In Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Another,
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 129, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
explained that instigation involves goading, urging, provoking,
inciting or encouraging a person to do an act. Express words of
instigation are not essential in every case, but the conduct
attributed to the accused must be such that the consequence can
reasonably be connected with that conduct. Similarly, in Amalendu
Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2010) 1
SCC 707, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere allegations of
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
harassment, without a positive act sufficiently proximate to the
occurrence which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide,
would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code. Applying these principles to the present
case, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential
ingredients of abetment.
8.21. The prosecution has also alleged that the accused conspired
to commit the offence and thereafter destroyed evidence by setting
the deceased on fire. However, no reliable evidence has been
brought on record to establish an agreement between the accused
to commit murder or to show that they acted in furtherance of a
common plan to cause the death of the deceased. The allegation of
destruction of evidence is based on the prosecution case that the
deceased was first murdered by forcibly administering poison and
was thereafter burnt. As the prosecution has failed to establish
this sequence of events or connect the accused with the act of
setting the deceased on fire, the charges under Sections 120B and
201 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained merely on
suspicion.
8.22. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4
SCC 415, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appellate
Court has full power to review and reconsider the evidence on
which an order of acquittal is based. However, the Court must
bear in mind that the acquittal strengthens the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused. Where two reasonable
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
conclusions are possible on the evidence on record, the appellate
Court should not disturb the acquittal merely because another
view may also be possible.
8.23. In State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981
SC 1417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when the
appellate Court agrees with the view taken by the trial Court on
the evidence, it is not necessary to repeat the entire discussion of
the evidence or reproduce the reasons already recorded by the trial
Court. It is sufficient to indicate agreement with the reasons
which are found to be proper and legally sustainable.
9. In the present case, the learned trial Judge has considered the
evidence of the material witnesses, the condition of the premises,
the medical evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution
case. The findings recorded by the trial Court are supported by
the evidence available on record. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has not been able to point out any material evidence
which was ignored by the trial Court or any finding which is
perverse or contrary to the record. The mere possibility of another
view is not sufficient to interfere with the acquittal. The State has
failed to demonstrate any material illegality or perversity in the
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court.
10. On an independent reappreciation of the evidence, this Court
finds that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the deceased was murdered by the respondents accused,
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026
R/CR.A/684/2004 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/10/2026
(GJHC240381022004)
that they abetted her to commit suicide, or that they entered into
a criminal conspiracy or deliberately destroyed evidence. The oral
evidence does not establish the alleged manner of death or the
participation of the accused, while the medical evidence does not
support the specific prosecution theory regarding forcible
administration of poison followed by burning. The allegations
regarding the illicit relationship and matrimonial harassment have
also not been established by cogent and consistent evidence.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled principles
governing an appeal against acquittal, this Court finds no infirmity
or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge.
The view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible
view on the material available on record. No ground is made out
for interference with the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal.
12. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.01.2004
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No. 1, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2001 is hereby
confirmed. The Record and Proceedings be remitted to the
concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
Sd/-
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
URIL RANA
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 30 18:34:22 IST 2026